Blog

Stay up-to-date with what we are doing

Selected Reading

Selected Readings on Indigenous Data Governance: 2026 Update

Posted on 17th of February 2026 by Andrew Zahuranec

Selected Readings on Indigenous Data Governance: 2026 Update
Selected Readings on Indigenous Data Governance: 2026 Update

As part of an ongoing effort to contribute to current topics in data, technology, and governance, The GovLab’s Selected Readings series provides an annotated and curated collection of recommended readings on themes such as open data, data collaboration, and civic technology.

In this edition, we curate writings from the last two years on Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance. It complements a previous iteration on these topics.

Key takeaways:

  • Data sovereignty as self-determination: Indigenous communities seek authority over how data about them is collected, used, and shared.
  • Broader definitions of data: Data includes culture, language, land, and relationships — not just statistics.
  • Relational governance: Trust, co-creation, and long-term partnerships are essential, not one-off consent.
  • CARE and Indigenous frameworks matter: Governance models centered on collective benefit, control, and ethics are reshaping practice.
  • AI is a double-edged sword: It creates risks of extraction and bias but also opportunities, especially for language and cultural preservation.
  • Implementation gaps remain: Legal recognition, capacity, standards, and institutional models are still under development in many contexts.

To suggest additional readings on this or any other topic, please email [email protected]. All our Selected Readings can be found here. All readings listed in alphabetical order.

***

Selected Reading List (in alphabetical order)

Annotated Selected Reading List (in alphabetical order):

Australian Government. 2024. “Framework for Governance of Indigenous Data (GID) | NIAA.” National Indigenous Australian Agency, May 30.

  • This is a framework for working with Indigenous data that seeks to place Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people at its core and was co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander partners.
  • It outlines a seven-year implementation plan for supporting increased agency of First Nations Australians line line with four principles: partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; build data-related capabilities; provide knowledge of data assets; build an inclusive data system.
  • The framework “acknowledges that better outcomes are achieved if First Nations people have a genuine say in matters affecting them — including the use of data to inform policy-making in government” and calls for data-related capacity building in these communities

Caballar, Rina Diane, and Sophie Bushwick. 2023. “How Indigenous Groups Are Leading the Way on Data Privacy.” Scientific American, June 7.

  • This article argues that Indigenous communities are leading the way in development of privacy-first data storage systems that give users control and agency over their information. Organizations like Terrastories, Our Data Indigenous, and Āhau do not rely on the cloud but on other methods because it “is almost like the knowledge is leaving the territory because it’s not physically present”.
  • The article also notes that some Indigenous-led apps offer more customized and granular levels of access and permissions. Terastories, for example, only lets maps and stories be viewable by members who have logged in to the app using their community’s credentials. Adding or editing requires editor access.
  • These are further supplemented by codes of conduct that researchers must follow to get access to data. Āhau, for example, adheres to the Te Mana Raraunga principles of Māori data sovereignty that requires giving Māori communities authority over their information and acknowledging the relationships they have with it.

Calac, Alec J., and Timothy K. Mackey. 2025. “A Systematic Review of Responsible Stewardship of Research and Health Data from Indigenous Communities.” Npj Digital Medicine 8 (1): 504.

  • This is a systemic review that aims to detail Indigenous Data Sovereignty considerations and practices in health research in the United States and elsewhere and to identify frameworks that operationalize IDS practices for responsible research and use of data-driven technologies. The review finds 41 relevant articles detailing specific considerations around collection, access, and use of Indigenous data as well as various regional or cultural considerations.
  • The authors identify specific data management considerations related to data access, ownership, knowledge systems and relationality; responsible data governance, metadata, and regulatory authority; and open-access challenges and tribal leader engagement.
  • It also notes how new technologies and systems are being rapidly designed, often without explicit rules and regulations to operationalize indigenous data sovereignty and protect Indigenous Peoples. It notes that digital technologies can benefit communities but only when they are used in a way that respects the communities that provide foundational data.

Cunningham-Reimann, Stephanie, Aarti Doshi, Sterling Stutz, Gabriel B. Tjong, and Angela Mashford-Pringle. 2025. “Flipping Data on Its Head: Differing Conceptualisations of Data and the Implications for Actioning Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles.” Global Public Health 20 (1): 2450395.

  • This article offers commentary on how to integrate Indigenous data sovereignty principles into data work. The authors begin by definition data in Western research (as “tangible, measurable, and observable phenomenon devoid of observer bias and contextualisation”) and Indigenous contexts (as information “created by, for and with Indigenous Peoples, communities, and Nations and includes language, culture, ceremonies, lands, dreams, songs, drums, instruments, artwork, clothing, regalia, beadwork, as well as stories, interviews, transcripts,artifacts (historic and contemporary), and statistic”).
  • The authors then outline how Indigenous data sovereignty is “predicated on distinct worldviews, cultures, histories, and data stewardship” and center an the overarching principle of self-determination in “data collection, analysis, usage,knowledge translation and dissemination, with Indigenous Peoples’ interests and decision-making authority in determining who can access and analyse Indigenous data and for what purposes”. Researchers engaging in Indigenous research must collaborate equitably with Indigenous communities throughout the research process, starting with research design and ending with dissemination.
  • The authors then offer several recommendations to researchers, scholars, policy makers, government staff, and other allies interested in implementing Indigenous data sovereignty. These include completing training from the First Nations Information Governance Centre; undertaking cultural safety training that includes socio-political history and developing authentic relationships with indigenous peoples; questioning the research process by co-creating the research process with Indigenous peoples; building relationships that lead to co-creation and are reciprocal beyond the initial project; and to apply a distinctions-based lens that respects the unique needs and characteristics of the specific Indigenous community they are working with.

Danton, Cheryl M., and Christopher Graziul. 2026. Confronting the Challenges of Sensitive Open Data. January 6.

  • This article introduces the term “sensitive open data” to describe “data containing private information about individuals that becomes available to the public through a range of mechanisms, from court orders to statutory mandates.” It highlights lessons that might be gleaned from Indigenous communities.
  • It describes the FAIR Principles and the complementary CARE Principles as guiding resources to “integrate Indigenous worldviews that center ‘people’ and ‘purpose’ to address critical gaps in conventional data frameworks by ensuring that Indigenous Peoples benefit from data activities and maintain control over their data.
  • The authors highlight two use cases that demonstrate the value of the CARE Principles, a 2014 project by the National Congress of American Indians Policy Research Center to improve census participation and the first tribal IRB, the Navajo Nation Human Research Review Board, which exercises sovereignty over all human research activities in the Navajo Nation.

Department of Health and Disability and Ageing (Australia). 2026. Governance of Indigenous Data: Implementation Plan. January 23. Australia.

  • This document is an implementation plan put forth by the Australian Government’s Department of Health, Disability, and Aging to require all entities to embed the Australian Government Framework for governance of Indigenous data, which guides users to partner with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (APS), build data-related APS capabilities, provide knowledge of data assets, and build an inclusive data system.
  • Acknowledging that the Department holds substantial datasets about the Australian Government, including APS, the department commits to working on genuine partnership “to ensure that First Nations people are afforded the right to exercise ownership and control over Indigenous data across all phases of the data lifecycle.”
  • The plan then outlines various goals and actions to achieve this aim, including efforts to “embed governance of Indigenous data in department policies and processes”, “build and maintain meaningful partnerships with First Nations people, communities, and organizations”, “develop and implement methods for First Nation people to know what data are held relating to their interests, its use, and how it can be accessed”, “build governance of Indigenous data capability for department staff and First Nations partners”, “support and engage in organizational and cultural change to improve governance of Indigenous data”, and “monitor and evaluate governance of indigenous data implementation”.

Drake, Allison K., Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee, Tony Green, et al. 2025. “Advancing Indigenous Data Governance through a Shared Understanding in Paulatuk, Inuvialuit Settlement Region.” Frontiers in Environmental Science 13 (March).

  • This piece examines Indigenous data governance frameworks in the Canadian arctic. To support Indigenous self-determination, Fisheries and Oceans Canada researchers and the Paulatuk Hunters and Trappers Committee co-developed a data governance statement specific to an interview project. This report then details the steps and dialogue that characterized the creation of this statement and five considerations to strengthen future efforts.
  • The piece then outlines a sequence that took place over several months where the research team developed academic ethics resources and documents, which were then reviewed by Indigenous group leaders. The authors provide a summary of the materials, which are living documents and can be updated as needed when applicable to other projects.
  • The piece then suggests, based on the project experiences, that future researchers center community and project context, the changing digital landscape, individual and collective knowledge protections, planned project outputs, and confidentiality and anonymity nuances. It concludes with a note that indigenous data governance is “integral to mutually-beneficial research partnerships that are necessary in an era of rapid environmental change.”

Hurst, Samantha, Kelle Dhein, Joseph Yracheta, and Timothy Mackey. 2026. “Sovereignty in the Digital Age Indigenous Perspectives on Health Data and Emerging Technologies.” SSM — Qualitative Research in Health 9 (June): 100698.

  • This study examines how Indigenous experts interpret the promises and risks of emerging digital technologies in relation to data sovereignty. It explores how Indigenous communities understand data governance challenges, evaluate technological innovations, and identify cultural, legal, ecological, and infrastructural considerations that shape sovereignty in digital contexts.
  • The researchers identify four central themes for practitioners to be cognizant of to promote Indigenous data sovereignty: (1) The Significance of Indigenous Data Sovereignty; (2) Balancing Sovereignty, Trust, and Capacity in Health Data Management; (3) Integrating Native Values into Data Governance and Technology Systems; and (4) Technology and Tribal Sovereignty: Opportunities and Challenges.
  • The piece concludes with a note that this work affirms and extends current Indigenous data sovereignty frameworks, “while making visible the deeper infrastructural and jurisdictional challenges that shape technology use in Indian Country. Addressing these challenges is essential for building the data foundations that allow Tribal Nations to design responsive health interventions, monitor outcomes, and strengthen the cultural relevance of health system decision-making.”

Jennings, Lydia, Katherine Jones, Riley Taitingfong, et al. 2025. “Governance of Indigenous Data in Open Earth Systems Science.” Nature Communications 16 (1): 572.

  • The Earth Data Relations Working Group convened to discuss what processes are needed to follow open science protocols while upholding Indigenous Peoples’ rights. The piece begins by reviewing open science mandates but notes, “mandates and their implementation don’t often consider the rights of Indigenous Peoples in relation to Earth observation data” and there are few examples of what application of Indigenous knowledge systems looks like in an open science and repositories context.
  • It notes that many Indigenous worldviews center relationships as a core value and that “relationships exist at the scale of the individual and collectives and apply to connections between humans, places, and biotic and abiotic communities in the past, present, and future.”
  • It recommends Earth science researchers adopt four practices to implement the CARE Principles and advance Indigenous Data Governance. First, the piece suggests adopting ongoing, internal learning and assessment practices to ensure that CARE is adopted as an iterative process and not treated as a one-off activity. Second, it suggests that organizations develop collaborative access permission and research protocols with Indigenous Peoples; enhance data and specimen management infrastructure to manage samples and specimens in ways consistent with Indigenous communities’ needs and expectations (including applying metadata and context labels); and enhancing data relations at all stages of the data lifecycle, which includes engaging data hosts on Indigenous metadata and amending citations.

Khani, Mohammad Milad. 2025. “Data Repurposing, Algorithmic Bias and Indigenous Privacy in the Age of AI | IAPP.” IAPP.Org, IAPP, November 5.

  • This article looks at Indigenous data sovereignty in Canada, which has a treaty obligation to recognize First Nations data sovereignty. However, the federal government has yet to yet to explicitly and fully recognize First Nations data sovereignty in legislation. This is a problem amid growing demand for datasets to train AI.
  • The author detail the ongoing threats to privacy and data sovereignty. There are growing concerns about the repurposing of personal information and what happens to Indigenous personal information that is reused for a secondary objective. It notes that ownership, control, access, and possession play an important role in data sovereignty.
  • The author recommends that Canada’s Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act should be amended to include clauses specifically about protecting the privacy of First Nations. The requirement for collective consent should be established alongside individual consent when data involves Indigenous communities. The author further argues that data sovereignty must be explicitly defined within the legal text, not relegated to secondary sources.

Ray, Shawn, and Ram L. Ray. 2026. “Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge Systems into AI Governance: Enhancing Ethical Frameworks with Maori and Navajo Perspectives.” AI and Ethics 6 (1): 114.

  • This paper examines the limitations of Western-centric ethical frameworks through a comparative analysis of Māori Kaitiakitanga and Navajo Hózhó principles, offering a framework for integrating these principles into AI governance.
  • Māori Kaitiakitanga emphasizes guardianship, responsibility, and the interconnectedness of all living things. By recognizing the right of all natural entities, Kaitiakitanga can inform the development of AI systems that prioritize the long-term health of ecosystems and challenges the assumption that all technological expansion is inherently beneficial.
  • Navajo Hozho, a core principle in Navajo philosophy, emphasizes “harmony, balance, beauty, and the interconnectedness of all beings. It represents a holistic worldview that seeks to maintain equilibrium between physical, mental, spiritual, and social well-being”. It promotes AI that is ethically sound, culturally sensitive, and aligned with the values of community and environmental well-being. The recognition of interconnectedness is crucial for decisions regarding data collection, algorithm design, and AI deployment.
  • The authors argue that while there is some tensions between the concepts — for example the emphasis on collective ownership in Kaitiakitanga — they offer a way forward in addressing AI governance challenges. Navigating these tensions requires open dialogue between Indigenous communities, AI developers, and policymakers and a critical examination of Western ethical principles and legal frameworks.

Suchikova, Yana, and Serhii Nazarovets. 2025. “Extending the CARE Principles: Managing Data for Vulnerable Communities in Wartime and Humanitarian Crises.” Scientific Data 12 (1): 420.

  • This essay examines the CARE Principles (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics) that were developed for the ethical stewardship of Indigenous data and to complement the technical standards of FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). The authors argue that the CARE Principles are a useful model for data governance for other vulnerable communities — such as those in conflict-affected environments.
  • Looking through the lens of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the piece notes how CARE can be adapted to new contexts. Collective benefit can be used to ensure data on IDPs and residents of occupied territories is used for humanitarian assistance, family reunifications, and long-term recovery. Authority to control can be used to ensure that those in conflict maintain autonomy over their personal information. Responsibility can demand that those using data in the Russo-Ukrainian context minimize harm, ensure informed consent, and foster trust with affected communities. Ethics, finally, can call organizations to commit to prioritizing the immediate and long-term recovery of at-risk groups.
  • The authors conclude by stating that extending CARE in this way does not compromise their original intent, to empower Indigenous communities, but underscores that universality and relevance as a robust ethical framework. They argue, “the global significance of CARE lies in its capacity to establish a standardized ethical framework for data governance across a wide range of contexts.”

Tanner, Brooke, and Cameron Kerry. 2025. “Can Small Language Models Revitalize Indigenous Languages?” Brookings, March 19.

  • This article examines how small language models may offer a cost-effective and resource-efficient solution for indigenous communities seeking to preserve their language, which is critical to preserving a cultural identity and transmitting unique worldviews, traditions, and knowledge.
  • The authors argue that “SLMs can respond to, analyze, and translate a variety of languages that […] are not widely used or recorded in digital formats.” They do this by reducing computational and data requirements in areas where high-end infrastructure is not available. It then highlights several examples of how SLMs have been successfully adapted specifically for Indigenous languages — designed, trained, and fine-tuned with input from the communities they serve.
  • The piece then offers guidance on collaborating on Indigenous communities, noting that community input and participation through the data collection, model training, and subsequent deployment can ensure that models respect traditional knowledge and align technological outcomes with community values. It specifically highlights one example of data stewardship from Te Hiku Media, a small nonprofit radio station in New Zealand, which created data licensing agreements to ensure that projects created with Māori data will benefit the Māori people as a whole.

Te Kāhui Raraunga (2025). Māori Artificial Intelligence Governance Framework. Contextualised advice for AI use, extending the Māori data governance model; Kukutai, T., Campbell-Kamariera, K., Mead, A., Mikaere, K., Moses, C., Whitehead, J. & Cormack, D. (2023). Māori data governance model. Te Kāhui Raraunga.

  • This is a comprehensive framework designed by Māori AI experts to guide the use of artificial intelligence across Aotearoa New Zealand public service. It recognizes that AI is “data-driven intelligence” and therefore needs to be culturally grounded in ways that “protect Māori data sovereignty and uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi. Without culturally grounded and Tiriti-anchored governance, there is a risk of systemic harm and extraction rather than partnership and benefit.”
  • It centers several key values including “nurturing data as a taonga that requires culturally grounded models of protection and care”, putting iwi-Māori data in iwi-Māori hands, using data for good, being accountable, and decolonizing data ecosystems.
  • It highlights several desirable outcomes including “reaffirming and strengthening connections to identity, place and te reo Māori” and “supporting whānau to flourish”.

“Consultation on Indigenous Data Governance Workshop, on Development Dimensions of Indigenous Traditional Knowledge, Cultural Heritage, and Biodiversity Data.” 2025. UN Data Governance Working Group, October 21.

  • This report addresses the challenges of data governance in Sarawak, Malaysia. While major steps have been taken to foster digital inclusion, one crucial element remains to be developed: Indigenous data governance. CARE and FAIR provide important foundations, they need to be localized to meet the needs of the people of Sarawak.
  • The ability to achieve Indigenous data governance is limited by a lack of contextual governance models that align with customary law, the diverse nature of Indigenous data, the ethical challenges that come from digitalization, interoperability and institutional silos, weak national policy integration, an absence of clear protocols for Indigenous data governance, and gaps in legal protection and benefit-sharing mechanisms.
  • To address these and other gaps, the report offers several lessons from case studies around the world. It then offers a list of policy recommendations, such as institutionalizing the CARE Principles at the State Level, establishing a Sarawak Indigenous Data Governance Framework, develop Sarawak-specific metadata standards, pilot interoperable data spaces, embed tiered consent frameworks, secure UN technical support, develop a community consent and data governance toolkit, and promote ethical data literacy across stakeholders.

“How Indigenous Knowledge Drives Scientific Discovery.” 2026. The UNESCO Courier, January.

  • This report from UNESCO highlights the ways in which indigenous knowledge can facilitate scientific discovery. It offers various articles offering lessons from Brazil on saving a fish species with the Paumari people, health research in China that relies on Dai medicine, astronomical research in Kalahari with Jul’hoansi hunter-gatherers, and efforts to adapt to climate with the Sami people.
  • Each of these cases demonstrate how Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems can be mutually beneficial. It demonstrates the need for exchanges between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists to foster better empirical data.
  • The authors emphasize that any exchange must be accompanied by guarantees of free and informed consent and equitable sharing of benefits. They argue that, “the objective is not simply to absorb Indigenous knowledge into mainstream science, but to promote cooperation for the benefit of all.”

 

Photo by Nick Kwan of Bill Reid’s “The Raven and the First Men” is licensed under CC0

Back to the Blog

Supported by